Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 03-13-2019, 05:44 PM
Iamnuts Iamnuts is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 302
Pathetic.

Aaron, have ago at researching phonons..
__________________
 
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #62  
Old 03-13-2019, 05:49 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
lead acid batteries - amazing technology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamnuts View Post
My big "find",as an offspin from the 3bgs is the lto battery.
In a lifetime I've ruined literally tons of la batteries.

Of course, ignorance is problematic and contributes to filling up the scrap yard with batteries. If you understood lead acid battery chemistry and knew how to properly charge them, you could have given them a theoretical infinite life span because the chemistry is 100% reversible to like new condition on every charge cycle - IF you knew anything about them.



So it is all-telling that you complain about lead acid batteries when the truth is that all it reveals is you know nothing about them. Instead of acting like they're a bad technology, you would be better off learning what they actually are and how they work. I'm all for lithium batteries if they are LiFePo4 since they're small, energy dense, more environmentally friendly than lithium cobalt types, and they're constant voltage batteries but my home lead acid backup battery bank is like gold and there is no way I'm getting rid of it because I understand its value and how to preserve that value.



Battery Secrets & Battery Rejuvenation by Peter Lindemann - the definitive presentations on lead acid batteries.



Free Solar Secrets - gives the magic chart showing what the battery needs to experience in order to revert to like-new chemistry, which has been known for 100 years. For a long time, we were the only ones in the world who produced a commercially available charger that did it right.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 03-14-2019 at 04:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-13-2019, 06:07 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,587
Should have made a copy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
You already agreed that you read the forum rules when you signed up, which were posted during registration.



Besides that, it is a private website and we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.


I don't see the point of your request because it is just common sense and common courtesy for any decent human being to not insult or demean other people because they don't like or believe what someone is saying. Anyone that needs to verify if acting indecent is against the rules is not a decent human being. You can go look at any boilerplate forum rules at almost any website and they are all pretty much the same.



It's not your disagreement with Turion's claims that is the issue, it is the manner in which you express it that is problematic.
O.K. my bad. I should have made a copy back then because my memory ain't what it used to be. You do notice that I do not resort to name calling and don't insult or demean others? In fact it is I that is commonly on the receiving end of that behavior.

Thanks anyways,

bi

{edit}
Looked further and found this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Please read Energetic Forum's updated terms and conditions: http://www.energeticforum.com/legal.html
Paragraph three includes:

" You agree to review these Terms of Use from time to time and agree that any subsequent use by you of this website following changes to these Terms of Use shall constitute your acceptance of all such changes. These Terms of Use were last modified on October 8, 2015."
__________________
 

Last edited by bistander; 03-14-2019 at 12:43 AM. Reason: Found it
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-13-2019, 06:35 PM
Iamnuts Iamnuts is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 302
Real world.

Aaron,
in business you've got to be practical. I need a battery that i can take
to do a task in remote place and leave it doing a job for a week, then swap it
with a fresh one.
Li-ion is a real game changer, I've got some that have been in use for years.
I've got a good charger which balances the cells to within.. 01v.
The lto looks so attractive, long life, good dod and fast charging. There's a big
drawback... the cost. Start leaving costly stuff around and it gets nicked!!
Sincerely John.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:11 PM
Turion's Avatar
Turion Turion is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,890
bi,
You don't resort to name calling or demean others? REALLY??
The following are ALL statements by you that I have screen shots of.

"You deceive yourself, and others gullible enough to believe you.

More BS. I am paying attention. I suspect lots of folks read your posts. But with these battery systems, every instrumented documented experiment and test available show no excess energy... NO free energy.

So lies, deception and falsehoods by Turion are acceptable positive contributions but simple request for proof of claim is not.

How long has Turion been spreading this BS?

The lies and fraud were there in print in your posts

But over the course of the months, or maybe years, I've come to realize you could not possibly be that dense, so you are, in fact, perpetrating a scam of sorts, intentionally misrepresenting things, stating falsehoods and yes, lying about things on purpose."


You called me a liar, a fraud, and stated that I am trying to "scam" others. How I am "scamming" them when I have NEVER asked for money, EVER is beyond me, but these are YOUR words. In fact, I'm pretty sure I can give you the names of at least 15 people on the forum to whom I have sent, rotors, magnets, motors, boost modules, oscilloscopes, battery analyzers, etc. to assist with their testing. In some cases they paid me back the postage. But in most cases I even paid for THAT, although some promised to pay me back and never did. How many people have YOU assisted in this search for truth?

I once said you are a sniveling low life coward who hides in the shadows and says whatever he wants because he is "anonymous." To that I will add liar, as your own words prove. So now my description of you becomes:

You are a sniveling low life LYING coward who hides in the shadows and says whatever he wants because he is "anonymous." Maybe I also should add "self righteous hypocrite"
__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda

Last edited by Turion; 03-13-2019 at 07:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:36 PM
Iamnuts Iamnuts is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 302
Wow!

My story.
I must have been about 65 years old when I eventually managed to
make sense of special relativity. Wow! It sure was a real light bulb moment
for me.
That got me going, I found that there were several outstanding physisits
in the early to mid 20th. century. I began to learn a bit about quanta and
uncertainty and eventually I came across relativistic induction. The induction
explanation was probably bigger for me than SR, although of course they're
totally connected.
Perhaps as Aaron suggests, I have got mental problems, but I'm getting on
now and I'm not as mentally adept as a younger person.
I seem to remember the led thingy from way back, could have been something
to do with Pauli's exclusion. I'm sure a lot of this stuff is correct, but for tbe
likes of me it's far from intuitive.
One thing I have found is that measuing efficiency is where a huge amount
people go wrong. I've got a cheapo watch and it has worked for fourteen years
on its original button cell, probably out by a couple of minutes in all that time.
Now that is what I'd call efficient.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:56 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,587
Facts

Turion,

Your screenshot quotes in blue are facts as I see it. We know to what I was referring but Aaron has told me not to speak about it, so I leave it.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:41 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,587
Truth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
bi,
... How many people have YOU assisted in this search for truth? ...
Actually I try to assist everyone in search for truth. That was certainly the case when I reached out to you via PM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander
Hi Turion,

Thanks. This sounds very much like what I've read in your posts for the past two years. It is basically story telling, meaning subjective. To impress the technical savvy you need verifiable test data showing inputs and outputs.

Statements like recover 80-85% of what goes through the load and COP of 22 are enough to turn any rational examiner off. Stick with a simple device or system. Define it. Quantify inputs. Quantify outputs. Show that and we have something to talk about.

If your system includes energy storage, then it must be at the same state of charge at the beginning and end of the test. The only way to do that with batteries is at zero or full charge. Any partial SOC is a crap shoot to quantify the contained energy. This is why I've not paid any attention to these battery schemes which frequent this forum. That and the fact that I've used and tested thousands of batteries over the decades. I'm more interested in the electromagnetic machinery.

I hope my comments are helpful. That's my intent. I will try to help more where I can. It may be beneficial for you to follow Ufo's thread from post #2448 on.
Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera

BTW, I wish BM would just go away.

Regards,

bi
And here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander
Dave, may I call you Dave?,

Quote:
if I have just six strands, I can put four in series to increase voltage and leave the other two in parallel to increase the amps. Mix and match to get the most desirable output up to the limit of what the coil is capable of producing.
I noticed this. It is incorrect. The series (S) and parallel (P) connections are similar to cell connections in a battery. For 6 wires your options are:

6S1P for 6 x V and 1 x I,

3S2P for 3 x V and 2 x I,

2S3P for 2 x V and 3 x I,

1S6P for 1 x V and 6 x I.

4S2P isn't an option which fully utilizes all the copper. It amounts to 5 x S and 1 x I.

You're welcome to use this info any way you want.

Regards,

bi
You were receptive to my help back about a year or two ago. You even told me privately about that item you had tested. I left it be saying we'd discuss it when you were ready to go public. I figured you'd include your data (proof) at that time. Like I spoke of in the first PM above. So not long after, on citfta's thread you publicly disclosed it. I asked to see the proof or data. Things went down hill from there. You wrote volumes to avoid the one thing I asked. At first, I thought you sincerely believed what you were saying. But after repeated explaintion and references by me showing the errors in your logic, I did come to the conclusions that you quoted in blue. It's possible I'm wrong about you, but I am not wrong about the science.

Is it a lie if the teller really believes it is true? Regardless of what the teller believes, the listener still receives a falsehood or untruth. That's what I was dealing with attempting to get to the bottom of an obvious dubious account.

Just trying to help you find truth.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:16 PM
Turion's Avatar
Turion Turion is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,890
I have taken constructive criticism from MANY people. Where I draw the line is when I am called a liar and a fraud by someone just because I won't do what THEY insist I should do. You say I am a liar, but that is just your opinion based on what you BELIEVE to be true about how things work.

We KNOW that YOU are a liar because I just used your own words to prove it.

As I have said many times now, the only reason I released this to the public is because I don't have the time or the facilities to work on it. My shop at my new house is under construction and the one at my old house is torn apart because we are still moving. If you do not believe this is so, I would be happy to shoot some video of both, as well as video of the twenty other projects I am involved in right now that are taking up all of my time. It will be months before I am in a position to prove anything to anybody.

It was my hope that SOMEONE would get off their butt and build this thing to replicate the results, but I will eventually get back to it. That people have to wait for those results is not MY fault. Blame it on the lack of real builders on this forum. I do have one OTHER energy project that has a higher priority than this one, but I could work on both if I had the time for either.
__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 03-14-2019, 01:10 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
it is the manner in which you express it that is problematic.
Think it was Paul B. that said "TAKE NO PRISONERS" Thanks Paul
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 03-14-2019, 05:21 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
A True Equal and Opposite Reaction

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamnuts View Post
My story.
I must have been about 65 years old when I eventually managed to
make sense of special relativity. Wow! It sure was a real light bulb moment
for me.
That got me going, I found that there were several outstanding physisits
in the early to mid 20th. century. I began to learn a bit about quanta and
uncertainty and eventually I came across relativistic induction. The induction
explanation was probably bigger for me than SR, although of course they're
totally connected.
Perhaps as Aaron suggests, I have got mental problems, but I'm getting on
now and I'm not as mentally adept as a younger person.
I seem to remember the led thingy from way back, could have been something
to do with Pauli's exclusion. I'm sure a lot of this stuff is correct, but for tbe
likes of me it's far from intuitive.
One thing I have found is that measuing efficiency is where a huge amount
people go wrong. I've got a cheapo watch and it has worked for fourteen years
on its original button cell, probably out by a couple of minutes in all that time.
Now that is what I'd call efficient.

@bistander - I'm now making the same request of you as well as @iamnuts



I'm still waiting for a valid response re: MIT 233% overunity LED test. Writing it off as a measurement error or anything off is insincere. Measure input to an LED is about as simple as you can get. No other excuses.


In the 3 battery thread, you claimed you either "want to believe" or "want to see success", which Turion already has. For the sake of argument, let's assume you are sincere in wanting to see something that produces more work than we have to supply on the front, which is the underlying desire behind your posts.

Well, providing you with the MIT paper showing 70mw of light for only 30mw input does just that.

1. IF you were sincere, you would demonstrate serious interest in the results that are pretty much indisputable - they did it and it made international news and is accepted by mainstream as being legit. According to you, its existence is impossible, yet there it is.

2. IF you were sincere, you would have to admit it is not only possible but has been done and that your belief to the contrary is obviously incorrect.

Neither of these 2 responses happened because:

1. You are insincere and have no intention to do anything other that looking at things that you feel confirm what you already believe, which means you are a liar.

2. Your ego is fragile to suffer from such a blow or you are here with the solar intent to disrupt.

Would a sane and rational person who claims they want to believe or want to see something that produces more work than it requires on the input respond or act like you did by intentionally sidestepping it while posting things that serve only to distract from the matter at hand?

Or, would they acknowledge that they studied the material because it is so shocking such a thing exists and is admitted by conventional science, which according to you such a thing would put physics in turmoil and would have to admit their belief has been in error?

Obviously, a sane and rational person would do the latter.

For someone to react or not react the way that you did and with your ridiculous answer about the light "thingy" and reference some quantum garbage is someone that 1) does indeed have some kind of mental issue or 2) is very sane and rational and is here to intentionally disrupt and spread propaganda. Which one is it? I'm not interested in the "poor me" character of "I must be crazy" or other nonsense - nobody is naive enough to believe you are truly the poor-me type. Another characteristic of someone who is insincere and dishonest.

If you are unable to acknowledge MIT demonstrated a LED that produces 233% more light than it takes to power the LED AND that it violates what you claimed regarding the impossibility of such overunity devices by the time I look at this forum tomorrow, you're both gone. This forum has nothing to offer you obviously since none of it jives with what you believe so you will not be at a loss when you can no longer login and post.

Thank you both by the way, you have not helped me iron out how to deal with these matters from here on out and I'll do it in 1-2 posts from now on with future trolls. They can prove they are intellectually honest about what they say and if they do not, then they will be booted.

Yes, I get the post about lightweight batteries, etc. and while I agree with you on the practicality, my attention span is infinitely long and nothing you can say or do will distract me from booting you if you do not demonstrate yourself to be intellectually honest by complying with what is in red above.

And if you comply with my request above, the next will be in regards to open systems. 1) You will have to admit it was you who was wrong about dismissing what I said is an open system and that you did not know what an open system is actually defined as (while brushing it off as an energy management system, which is laughable and 2) You will have to admit that the entire branch of thermodynamics was extended in 1977 to include systems that produce more work than what is required on the input since free input comes from external sources.

Yes, it is reasonable to ask for proof of claims, obviously it makes sense to do that. But being reasonable myself and a being dedicated builder, if there are details given by someone making some claim and I have an interest in it, I'll do what a reasonable person will do - I'll build it myself and make the determination myself whether it is or isn't what is claimed. If I don't have the tools or don't have skills to do it myself but still want to know, I don't need to make it a long drawn out process of bugging the hell out of someone over and over and over by disrupting the flow of conversation and what is being shared with negative cynicism, etc. while demanding they provide me with what I want. I'll either move on to something that meets my criteria or I'll just wait silently until what I'm looking for is posted.

Please don't argue with me or complain about me making these demands of you - I'm giving you a condensed, cliff notes opportunity to experience what you both have done to Turion - actually bistander moreso. You expect others to prove their claims to you? Well, now you have the opportunity to prove your claims to me and others of wanting to help, being honest about what you are seeking, etc. or get booted.

I think that is an extremely fair exchange of energy don't you? You believe so strongly that Newton's 3rd law applies to everything - well, this is one thing in this forum that I will admit it applies to wholeheartedly!
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 03-14-2019 at 05:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 03-14-2019, 06:48 AM
padova padova is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 34
LED's efficiency exceeds 100%

Quote:
The researchers, Parthiban Santhanam and coauthors from MIT, have published their study in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters.

As the researchers explain in their study, the key to achieving a power conversion efficiency above 100%, i.e., ďunity efficiency,Ē is to greatly decrease the applied voltage. According to their calculations, as the voltage is halved, the input power is decreased by a factor of 4, while the emitted light power scales linearly with voltage so that itís also only halved. In other words, an LEDís efficiency increases as its output power decreases. (The inverse of this relationship - that LED efficiency decreases as its output power increases - is one of the biggest hurdles in designing bright, efficient LED lights.)

In their experiments, the researchers reduced the LEDís input power to just 30 picowatts and measured an output of 69 picowatts of light - an efficiency of 230%. The physical mechanisms worked the same as with any LED: when excited by the applied voltage, electrons and holes have a certain probability of generating photons. The researchers didnít try to increase this probability, as some previous research has focused on, but instead took advantage of small amounts of excess heat to emit more power than consumed. This heat arises from vibrations in the deviceís atomic lattice, which occur due to entropy.
It doesn't seem as the laws of physics were broken this way.

with respect

regards
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 03-14-2019, 09:53 AM
Iamnuts Iamnuts is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 302
Waffle.

Aaron, a bit of advice. ďDonít waffleĒ. Itís a sign of insecurity.
Think about what you want to say and do it in a quarter of the words.
The led has been well explained by known science.
You would do well to study this from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechan...ical_analogies.

If you want me to quit altogether thatís fine by me, just say the word.

John.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 03-14-2019, 10:03 AM
Iamnuts Iamnuts is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 302
Pertinent.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08kscgb

I donít know if these links work for any of you but I find these discussions
fascinating.
John.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 03-14-2019, 12:44 PM
ilandtan's Avatar
ilandtan ilandtan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamnuts View Post
Hi bistander,
It’s quite easy to see that Aaron doesn’t understand basic relativistic
induction. You can argue ‘til the cows come home and it won’t get you anywhere
with him.
Someone worked out the regenerative braking for your car with the
known formulae and then another made the hardware. They put it together
and it works. That has been the case for millions of mechanisms,and when
done correctly,how many have failed to perform as predicted?
I was naive when I started the “free energy” search, I saw a Bedini presentation
and was hooked. Now,looking back I can see that it’s an industry, gullible
investors have been taken in for years.
John.
John, I am maybe contributing my dime store psychoanalysis but this is crux of your issue. You came lured by something free, and it didn't pan out that you could recharge your car with it... or something. You continue to regurgitate mainstream science with textbook accuracy. So you and Bi will be hard to argue with because what you represent is what we should accept, walk away with no arguments.

I can certainly not argue with the laws of thermodynamics, but If you came to this place experimenting, you should of noticed on your journey that everything doesn't work as described, and some of these technologies are not even touched on by engineering constructs. Google "wireless power transmission" and you see small devices. Why then was Tesla doing it on a large scale over a hundred years ago.

You might find comfort in the thought that Tesla was an eccentric, and creating technologies that were unreasonable, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.

George Bernard Shaw said “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man"

It would be a pity if you or bi get tossed out. The community needs pragmatists because discovery borders on insanity. This means that region needs to be policed by the whole, and it is not uncommon for some of the best and brightest to go way out there. That's when we start applying free thinking to Politics and Religion.

But being unreasonable is a great club, it's where we learn to fly. So please, don't have a one page search as your perspective. The solution may be on page 99 where I hope my solution will be some day.


Does "Free Energy" exist? Prove it.

Do you love your Dad? Prove it.

The belief is more significant than the reality
__________________
 

Last edited by ilandtan; 03-14-2019 at 12:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 03-14-2019, 12:44 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,587
Required response

Quote:
Originally Posted by padova View Post

Quote:
The researchers, Parthiban Santhanam and coauthors from MIT, have published their study in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters.

As the researchers explain in their study, the key to achieving a power conversion efficiency above 100%, i.e., “unity efficiency,” is to greatly decrease the applied voltage. According to their calculations, as the voltage is halved, the input power is decreased by a factor of 4, while the emitted light power scales linearly with voltage so that it’s also only halved. In other words, an LED’s efficiency increases as its output power decreases. (The inverse of this relationship - that LED efficiency decreases as its output power increases - is one of the biggest hurdles in designing bright, efficient LED lights.)

In their experiments, the researchers reduced the LED’s input power to just 30 picowatts and measured an output of 69 picowatts of light - an efficiency of 230%. The physical mechanisms worked the same as with any LED: when excited by the applied voltage, electrons and holes have a certain probability of generating photons. The researchers didn’t try to increase this probability, as some previous research has focused on, but instead took advantage of small amounts of excess heat to emit more power than consumed. This heat arises from vibrations in the device’s atomic lattice, which occur due to entropy.
It doesn't seem as the laws of physics were broken this way.

with respect

regards
Thank you Padova,

I was going to mention or point out the same when it was my turn. Effects are a billion times smaller than Aaron claims (pW, picowatts, not mW, milliwatts). Also, it needed elevated temperature, 135įC. There is also this, quote from paper.

Quote:
Although the Peltier heat exchange of the injection process is highly nonuniform, on average the device remains very slightly cooled so that in steady state the thermal energy required to pump the emitter flows in from the ambient environment. The net cooling power Pcool is given by the difference between the emitted optical power and the input electrical power and is shown in Fig. 4(a). In terms of the zero-bias resistance Rand the current through the device I, the net cooling power is given by
see paper for equation
Quote:
Note that R is not indicative of a purely irreversible process as in an Ohmic resistance. At low bias, voltage and current are directly proportional and R, measured in ohms, represents their ratio. Equation (2) indicates that net cooling results from competition between a cooling process linear in current and a heating process quadratic in current. Here, low-bias LED operation is analogous to a thermoelectric cooler [24], in which Peltier heat transfer competes with Joule heating to realize heat pumping. In both devices a finite current maximizes cooling power, and at lower currents there is a trade-off between power and efficiency.
Moreover, as sources of irreversibility are removed from the LED, it acts as a reversible Carnot-efficient heat pump [19,25] operating between the lattice and the photon field.
This is a complex, and well done, paper. The part which I quoted above leads me to believe that this phenomena is similar in nature to a heat pump where one deals with COP for the system rather than device (converter) efficiency. In support of my observation, note the author's definition in paragraph one.
Quote:
Here we report the first experimental observa-
tion of electroluminescence in which the ratio of detected optical power to supplied electrical power, known commonly as the wall-plug efficiency (or as the heating coefficient of performance), exceeds unity.
Throughout the paper the authors use wall-plug efficiency.

This research is from 2012. If it had indeed proven a break in conventional foundations of physics, I would have though there would be quite more activity surrounding it. I try to keep abreast of developments in the field and this was the first time I have heard about it. Although interesting, I've spent way more time on it than I would have liked.

Aaron,
You have your own definitions of words and terms which I tend to use in the old fashioned conventional manner. Often it seems like we speak different language. So, to be clear, talking about COP, I use this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coef...of_performance

Regards and I hope this addresses your concerns,

bi
__________________
 

Last edited by bistander; 03-14-2019 at 08:26 PM. Reason: billion was million
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 03-14-2019, 03:48 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,587
Conservation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
...
This is a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system and is considered as such because the free environmental input for that system happens to be heat, which while it enters the system, it delays (not prevents) it from moving towards entropy or delays it from moving towards equilibrium. Therefore, it is a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system and IS the very definition of an open system. Closed system thermodynamics does NOT apply to the MIT led study that shows gains above unity and the same applies to heat pumps, the same applies to chemical systems, the same applies to overunity magnetic or mechanical systems, etc.

...

You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that that the academic world EMBRACES non-equilibrium thermodynamics and their application to open systems. It applies to economic models and even social models. When a community comes together with people, it is an example of reverse entropy and is a self-ordering effect - the exact same as all of the free energy systems - there is a self-ordering mechanism by which disordered potential enters the system as it is polarized and become ordered. It is negentropic while free input delays entropy - during that time, more work can be done than we have to pay for on the input.



https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/ch.../1977/summary/


https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/ch...press-release/


These overunity systems ARE dissipative structures that operate in conjunction with their environment. Thermodynamics was advanced in 1977 but apparently, the whole world of physics forgot to personally inform you. It's possible your ludicrous, insane claims are correct and Nobel Prize winning science is incorrect, but I know where I'll put my money. The very existence and acknowledgement by physics and the academic world as a whole regarding open dissipative systems / non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems flushes your nonsensical, delusional claims down the drain.



https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/ch...remony-speech/


"Prigogine and his assistants chose instead to study systems which follow non-linear kinetic laws and which, moreover, are in contact with their surroundings so that energy exchange can take place Ė open systems, in other words. If these systems are driven far from equilibrium, a completely different situation results. New systems can then be formed which display order in both time and space and which are stable to perturbations. Prigogine has called these systems dissipative systems, because they are formed and maintained by the dissipative processes which take place because of the exchange of energy between the system and its environment and because they disappear if that exchange ceases. They may be said to live in symbiosis with their environment."


If your complete misunderstanding of Newton and conventional thermodynamics applies to electrical systems, then it must apply to chemical, social and other systems. What you find is that your claims are delusional and have no basis in reality and this Nobel Prize winning material that is highly respected among all the top thermodynamicists in the world shows that your claims regarding equal and opposite reactions, etc. are pure nonsense and do not apply to all systems because if it did, these dissipative structures would not exist and they do.
...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by Turion View Post
...

There is absolutely NOTHING in physics that 'describes in detail" why my generator won't work. There CAN'T be. Because it works.

...
I think this covers it in detail.

Conservation Laws

bi
...
If you look at the conservation laws in my link, you'll see they do not conflict with your dissipative structures. But I'm sure the generator will abide by those conservation laws. Other systems; I recognize may fall outside the conditions stated in the conservation laws.

And the study and expansion of fundamentals in physics does not invalidate all preceding work. Newton's laws still work well enough to get a craft to rendezvous with furthest objects in the solar system or calculate the trajectory of projectiles.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 03-14-2019, 04:52 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,587
Magmov

While web snooping/I mean searching/ for Tewari, I found this. https://www.magmovenergy.com/market/

Now I say it is fake. All it takes is $3 to 6,000 to find out for sure. I'm sure enough I'll keep my money. But might see if they can provide proof.

Anybody else know anything about them? Please fill us in.

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 03-14-2019, 09:12 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,587
Comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
@bistander - I'm now making the same request of you as well as @iamnuts



I'm still waiting for a valid response re: MIT 233% overunity LED test. Writing it off as a measurement error or anything off is insincere. Measure input to an LED is about as simple as you can get. No other excuses.


In the 3 battery thread, you claimed you either "want to believe" or "want to see success", which Turion already has. For the sake of argument, let's assume you are sincere in wanting to see something that produces more work than we have to supply on the front, which is the underlying desire behind your posts.

Well, providing you with the MIT paper showing 70mw of light for only 30mw input does just that.

1. IF you were sincere, you would demonstrate serious interest in the results that are pretty much indisputable - they did it and it made international news and is accepted by mainstream as being legit. According to you, its existence is impossible, yet there it is.

2. IF you were sincere, you would have to admit it is not only possible but has been done and that your belief to the contrary is obviously incorrect.

Neither of these 2 responses happened because:

1. You are insincere and have no intention to do anything other that looking at things that you feel confirm what you already believe, which means you are a liar.

2. Your ego is fragile to suffer from such a blow or you are here with the solar intent to disrupt.

Would a sane and rational person who claims they want to believe or want to see something that produces more work than it requires on the input respond or act like you did by intentionally sidestepping it while posting things that serve only to distract from the matter at hand?

Or, would they acknowledge that they studied the material because it is so shocking such a thing exists and is admitted by conventional science, which according to you such a thing would put physics in turmoil and would have to admit their belief has been in error?

Obviously, a sane and rational person would do the latter.

For someone to react or not react the way that you did and with your ridiculous answer about the light "thingy" and reference some quantum garbage is someone that 1) does indeed have some kind of mental issue or 2) is very sane and rational and is here to intentionally disrupt and spread propaganda. Which one is it? I'm not interested in the "poor me" character of "I must be crazy" or other nonsense - nobody is naive enough to believe you are truly the poor-me type. Another characteristic of someone who is insincere and dishonest.

If you are unable to acknowledge MIT demonstrated a LED that produces 233% more light than it takes to power the LED AND that it violates what you claimed regarding the impossibility of such overunity devices by the time I look at this forum tomorrow, you're both gone. This forum has nothing to offer you obviously since none of it jives with what you believe so you will not be at a loss when you can no longer login and post.

Thank you both by the way, you have not helped me iron out how to deal with these matters from here on out and I'll do it in 1-2 posts from now on with future trolls. They can prove they are intellectually honest about what they say and if they do not, then they will be booted.

Yes, I get the post about lightweight batteries, etc. and while I agree with you on the practicality, my attention span is infinitely long and nothing you can say or do will distract me from booting you if you do not demonstrate yourself to be intellectually honest by complying with what is in red above.

And if you comply with my request above, the next will be in regards to open systems. 1) You will have to admit it was you who was wrong about dismissing what I said is an open system and that you did not know what an open system is actually defined as (while brushing it off as an energy management system, which is laughable and 2) You will have to admit that the entire branch of thermodynamics was extended in 1977 to include systems that produce more work than what is required on the input since free input comes from external sources.

Yes, it is reasonable to ask for proof of claims, obviously it makes sense to do that. But being reasonable myself and a being dedicated builder, if there are details given by someone making some claim and I have an interest in it, I'll do what a reasonable person will do - I'll build it myself and make the determination myself whether it is or isn't what is claimed. If I don't have the tools or don't have skills to do it myself but still want to know, I don't need to make it a long drawn out process of bugging the hell out of someone over and over and over by disrupting the flow of conversation and what is being shared with negative cynicism, etc. while demanding they provide me with what I want. I'll either move on to something that meets my criteria or I'll just wait silently until what I'm looking for is posted.

Please don't argue with me or complain about me making these demands of you - I'm giving you a condensed, cliff notes opportunity to experience what you both have done to Turion - actually bistander moreso. You expect others to prove their claims to you? Well, now you have the opportunity to prove your claims to me and others of wanting to help, being honest about what you are seeking, etc. or get booted.

I think that is an extremely fair exchange of energy don't you? You believe so strongly that Newton's 3rd law applies to everything - well, this is one thing in this forum that I will admit it applies to wholeheartedly!
O.K. Aaron, the LED in the MIT produced light power of 233% times the electrical input power supplied to the LED. I can accept that result. I never said differently. I believe the power or energy difference between the measured output and electric input power came from the environment.

As far as an electric generator, I do not believe anyone had devised, as of yet, a method to tap that environment to gain energy to produce higher electric power than the mechanical power delivered on the shaft by the prime mover, aside from transients. It was such claims made by UfoPolitics showing up on search engine results which brought me to this forum in the first place. He was much talk and no proof, although he tried. With electric machinery, I know what I'm looking at. But you know what? That's why I'm here. I long to be proven wrong. That's how I learn. That's why I bug Turion. I don't want to belittle him or hurt him in any way. I want to help him. I'll gladly help him prove me wrong. I'd love to. But I can't if he doesn't show me the end results he claims.

So LEDs and semiconductor devices in conditions like the MIT experiment are outside my expertise. So are heat pumps although our home uses geothermal. I don't know much about those dissipative systems of money, or people, or biology that you mentioned. But I do know how electric motors and generators work. I thought I might be able to help in that regard.

Take it or leave it.

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 03-14-2019, 10:51 PM
Iamnuts Iamnuts is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 302
Silly.

This led thing is silly. It just seems to react with the environment.
What I wanted was an example of where the energy comes from when
there is a claim of no counterforce.
Where does the energy come from in a 3bgs?
Iíve never seen a proven mah.
Iíve been looking for about fifteen years now and seen many,many frauds.
John.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 03-14-2019, 11:52 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
banned

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamnuts View Post
Aaron, a bit of advice. ďDonít waffleĒ. Itís a sign of insecurity.
Think about what you want to say and do it in a quarter of the words.
The led has been well explained by known science.
You would do well to study this from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechan...ical_analogies.

If you want me to quit altogether thatís fine by me, just say the word.

John.

Thanks, you're banned.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 03-14-2019, 11:56 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
no violation

Quote:
Originally Posted by padova View Post
It doesn't seem as the laws of physics were broken this way.

with respect

regards

Obviously, otherwise it would have been demonstrated.



The point is that it is an indiputable demonstration of more work output than electrical input, which according to nuts and bistander is impossible.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 03-15-2019, 12:56 AM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,587
Never said that

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Obviously, otherwise it would have been demonstrated.



The point is that it is an indiputable demonstration of more work output than electrical input, which according to nuts and bistander is impossible.
Aaron,

I never said that. From my first read of the MIT article my opinion was similar to that expressed by padova and restated in my post up a few on this page. Turion often misquoted me and others like Matt accused me of statements I never made. Fortunately we have a record of what I posted.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:05 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
open system thermodynamics

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Thank you Padova,

I was going to mention or point out the same when it was my turn. Effects are a billion times smaller than Aaron claims (pW, picowatts, not mW, milliwatts). Also, it needed elevated temperature, 135įC. There is also this, quote from paper.

see paper for equation


This is a complex, and well done, paper. The part which I quoted above leads me to believe that this phenomena is similar in nature to a heat pump where one deals with COP for the system rather than device (converter) efficiency. In support of my observation, note the author's definition in paragraph one.
Throughout the paper the authors use wall-plug efficiency.

This research is from 2012. If it had indeed proven a break in conventional foundations of physics, I would have though there would be quite more activity surrounding it. I try to keep abreast of developments in the field and this was the first time I have heard about it. Although interesting, I've spent way more time on it than I would have liked.

Aaron,
You have your own definitions of words and terms which I tend to use in the old fashioned conventional manner. Often it seems like we speak different language. So, to be clear, talking about COP, I use this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coef...of_performance

Regards and I hope this addresses your concerns,

bi

My mistake picowatts - true laws of physics don't discriminate. pw, mw, or megawatts - a true law will apply equally to all scales and a led powered by picowatts is far from a "quantum" scale where things get weird but only for conventional physics. With aetheric unified models, there is a seamless transition between the subatomic world and large masses - no contradictions and it accounts for everything that erroneous, conventional physics cannot.



Elevated temperatures - by bringing that up, you only support what I've already said that overunity systems do not produce more than what goes into them, the produce more than we have to input meaning there is extra input from somewhere else.

For heat pumps, obviously the overunity comes from free environmental heat, which moves all by itself toward the cold. My use of COP is 100% identical to what you posted at wikipedia, one of the greatest misinformation tools in the history of information but for benign topics, its acceptable.

I am not using my own definition of COP. COP is conventionally applied to heat pumps. It is extremely short-sighted to believe COP does not apply to non-heat pump systems because all other open systems still have a ratio between work done compared to what is required to run the system. Does anyone believe there has to be a new term used for each and every system to describe the output work to OUR input work ratio? It would obviously be ridiculous to suggest such a thing.

From your good old wiki site:


The equation is:
where
  • is the useful heat supplied or removed by the considered system.
  • is the work required by the considered system.
-------------


Simply, COP again, is the useful or desired work output by the system divided by the work WE have to input. It does not include the free input from environmental systems. COP = Q/W is the proper formula to show the output work done compared to what we have to pay for on the input for EVERY open, non-equilibrium thermodynamic system such as the MIT LED. The COP, which is 2.30.

So where do you get the idea that I'm using my own definition? I'm using it 100% in alignment with what the ratio demonstrates.



A child puts in 1 part work to get a kite airborn and 9 parts of wind input comes in over a period of time for 10 parts total input. If 1/2 of all that is lost in bad kite design, friction losses, etc... that means only 5 units of useful, desired flying work was done. 10 TOTAL input with 5 total output = 50% EFFICIENT.

5 units of useful, desired kite-flying work were done for an input of only 1 from the operator of the system, which is a 500% NET GAIN in work compared to what the kid put into it. 5 units of work (Q) divided by 1 unit of work required to operate the system (W) = a cop of 5.0. Is anyone blind enough to believe that we have to create an entire new term to describe the exact same ratio relationships between intended work done and required work on the input that we have to provide?

Don't pretend something is lost in translation, I have given very clear explanations of my use of COP vs Efficiency and if you have been confused by such simple concepts, then it is your comprehensions that is troublesome - not the words that I am using.

The MIT LED test has both an efficiency and COP - efficiency is difficult to calculate because it is difficult to measure how much free environmental heat is being input to the LED. The COP is easy to calculate because the input is known and so is the useful work done.

Classical thermodynamics doesn't even apply to this system because it is an open, non-equilibrium thermodynamic system. Classical thermodynamics actually doesn't apply to closed systems either because there is no such thing as a closed system.

COP is properly defined in this video excerpt:

https://emediapress.com/2017/02/27/o...ter-lindemann/



You're idea of helping others "find the truth" is actually an attempt to dissuade people from believing anything different from what you believe. It is evidenced by the entirety of your posts in this forum. That mentality is a dime-a-dozen and many like you have come and gone over the years and here we are still making progress.


The MIT LED DOES violate conventional physics because it is only admitted that over 1.0 COP applies to heat pumps and the MIT is not a heat pump - it is an electrical circuit and electrical circuits are "banned" from having free environmental input. The heat pump analogy I have already given you and nut job plenty of times and now you are suddenly stating the same analogy as if it is some revelation that you had. You are a clown.

The MIT LED is an ELECTRICAL circuit with a COP of 2.30, which is a direct violation of your conventional beliefs. More work done than the required electrical input. You can wiggle all you want - bottom line is the MIT LED experiment itself flushes you nonsense down the drain and you're such a snake, you're trying to make it look like its all a normal operation.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 03-15-2019 at 01:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:32 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
classical nitwit science

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
If you look at the conservation laws in my link, you'll see they do not conflict with your dissipative structures. But I'm sure the generator will abide by those conservation laws. Other systems; I recognize may fall outside the conditions stated in the conservation laws.

And the study and expansion of fundamentals in physics does not invalidate all preceding work. Newton's laws still work well enough to get a craft to rendezvous with furthest objects in the solar system or calculate the trajectory of projectiles.

Regards,

bi

Conservation is a mythical concept that doesn't apply to any energy system in the world. It is ignorance to the supreme degree. Work done is always dissipated to the environment and if the system is open and cyclic, the work done goes to creating a new potential difference that allows new source potential to energy to do more work. There is no such thing as transforming energy from one form to another.

There is no conservation in conventional or low to no drag generators. What you're sure of is a religious belief, not science.

A flashlight is the quintessential "closed" electric circuit. You turn it on and the dipole moves towards equilibrium until the light goes off. It is ONLY a closed system for one purpose and one purpose only - it is considered closed because the flashlight is not designed to make use of any environmental input and that is it. However, that flashlight circuit is open to heat, gravity, light, sound, space/aether, etc. but it has no mechanism to turn any of that into free environmental input - that is the only reason it is to be considered a closed system. The practical/casual use of "closed" does not mean it is a truly closed system.

What thermodynamics apply to the flashlight? Non-equilibrium thermodynamics because regardless of the practical use of open or closed to describe it - the true energetic reality is that of an open system. Throw that flashlight into 1 foot of fresh fallen snow and see how fast that light goes out. If it was a closed system as far as the physics is concerned, the light would stay on as long as it would at room temperature or at above the boiling point of water. This is an indisputable example that the "closed" electrical circuit has free interchange with its environment. EVERY "closed" system has free interchange with its environment as well - not just this one example.

Open system non-equilibrium thermodynamics DOES invalidate classical thermodynamics because it invalidates its entire use as being the end-all, be-all explanation of how a system cannot have move output than input. And, that is the nonsense that cynical nitwits keep spewing about the entire world of free energy not even knowing that the thermodynamics they keep pointing to have no application to non-equilibrium free energy machines!
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:36 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
nonsense

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Aaron,

I never said that. From my first read of the MIT article my opinion was similar to that expressed by padova and restated in my post up a few on this page. Turion often misquoted me and others like Matt accused me of statements I never made. Fortunately we have a record of what I posted.

Regards,

bi

Nonsense - it is implied by the underlying premise of your counterclaims.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:45 AM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,587
What?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Nonsense - it is implied by the underlying premise of your counterclaims.
I do not understand. I state my position and claims clearly. I imply what I write, only, nothing more.

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 03-15-2019, 02:18 AM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,587
Agree

Aaron,

On MIT experiment, I agree with you. I believe the authors.

Quote:
Although the Peltier heat exchange of the injection process is highly nonuniform, on average the device remains very slightly cooled so that in steady state the thermal energy required to pump the emitter flows in from the ambient environment. The net cooling power Pcool is given by the difference between the emitted optical power and the input electrical power and is shown in Fig. 4(a).
Ambient energy enters the device and contributes to the output or useful work done, making the COP 2.33. I say this clearly before, and now. I am sincere.

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 03-15-2019, 03:23 AM
Turion's Avatar
Turion Turion is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,890
Proof

bi,
I sincerely wish I had the space and time to put that generator back together and test it, but that isnít going to happen for a while. I am way over committed and am already hiring people to do jobs I just donít have the time to get to, even though I canít really afford it.

Consider this. If you use a motor to turn a rotor with magnets on it past a coil, will it generate energy? How about past two coils? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred? At what point does the energy put out by the coils exceed what is required to run the motor?

Why doesnít everyone just build that simple device and get all the energy they want?

Two reasons. The rotor magnets turning past the iron cores of the coils are attracted to them and in order for the motor to overcome this attraction and keep the rotor turning, it must draw more amps. Hook ANY motor to a rotor and allow it to get the rotor up to speed and them move a coil with an iron core near the rotor and watch the amp draw of the motor. It will go up. That is a fact. Times this increased amp draw by twenty if you introduce twenty coils, and now you have probably exceeded the rated amp draw of the motor. And by the way, the rpm of the motor has dropped significantly too. You havenít even hooked the coils to a load yet and already you are burning up your motor. I know, because I have DONE this experiment MANY times. Have you? And then I figured out a way to get the rotor up to speed with ALL those coils in place with NO decrease in rpm and NO increase in amp draw and you said that wasnít worth anything.

The second reason everyone doesnít build a generator like I described is because when the coils are put under load, it is reflected back to the motor and the rpm of the motor goes down and the amp draw goes up. With delayed lens or no drag generators this doesnít happen either. Now you can argue that no drag/ delayed lens generators canít be built, but you would be wrong.

The two principles that allow my generator to do what I say it can do can both easily be proven by anyone with a rotor turned by a motor. All it takes is a single properly wound coil. You canít be bothered to build THAT much? If not, you are not a researcher.
__________________
"I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds
"Try Not! Do or do not. There is no 'Try' ". Yoda
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 03-15-2019, 04:57 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,963
i acknowledge your acknowledgement

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
O.K. Aaron, the LED in the MIT produced light power of 233% times the electrical input power supplied to the LED. I can accept that result. I never said differently. I believe the power or energy difference between the measured output and electric input power came from the environment.

As far as an electric generator, I do not believe anyone had devised, as of yet, a method to tap that environment to gain energy to produce higher electric power than the mechanical power delivered on the shaft by the prime mover, aside from transients. It was such claims made by UfoPolitics showing up on search engine results which brought me to this forum in the first place. He was much talk and no proof, although he tried. With electric machinery, I know what I'm looking at. But you know what? That's why I'm here. I long to be proven wrong. That's how I learn. That's why I bug Turion. I don't want to belittle him or hurt him in any way. I want to help him. I'll gladly help him prove me wrong. I'd love to. But I can't if he doesn't show me the end results he claims.

So LEDs and semiconductor devices in conditions like the MIT experiment are outside my expertise. So are heat pumps although our home uses geothermal. I don't know much about those dissipative systems of money, or people, or biology that you mentioned. But I do know how electric motors and generators work. I thought I might be able to help in that regard.

Take it or leave it.

bi

Thanks, I appreciate that you are able to admit the obvious.



Of course it came from the environment (artificial or not - still externally sourced).



But environmental input isn't always the only extra input in an overunity device or maybe it is. Some of this input may come from reactive elements within a system that do not appear to be externally sourced, but we're easily fooled.



There are many things in nature or in the man-made world where work is being performed, but there is a dominating fictitious belief that work is not being done according to conventional physics and mathematics when work clearly is being done.


It is claimed that gravity can do no work or that magnets can do no work, but elementary school math can show that they do.


In a few months, the ability to realize what this "hidden" work is will be more attainable by more people.



If you have an inductor with a permanent magnet at the core and that inductor was charged but is not switched off, as the magnetic field collapses, the magnetic field of the permanent magnet is partially pulled off of the magnet and that adds to the emf that causes a voltage spike. The active vacuum or aether instantly replenishes what the permanent magnet contributed so that is an example of how a magnet can contribute potential to do work. There are many other examples - this is just one.



I believe you believe mechanical work hasn't produced more electricity in a generator than it takes to move a prime mover and I'll leave it there for now. I have no argument about what you do not believe.




This is a simple analogy most people can relate to and understand. The foam is not necessarily wasted even though you pay the power company for reactive power - you don't get to use it.

But it is a great example - the foam is "phantom power" or "reactive power" and to convert it to real power that can do work, just wait a few minutes and let the element of TIME turn it into real power that you can actually drink.



You can pour that beer at a very low power factor by pouring it in to a very large mug to compensate for the volume of foam from 2 feet above the mug thereby creating maybe 95% foam or reactive power and 5% real power, but if you wait long enough, you will have 100% real power that will fill your stomach with not air, but real beer. What changed to make that possible?



Something to think about anyway.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
thread, post, nonsense, start, anonymous, add, exception, march, point, state, leave, respect, popularity, posts, reputation, face, checking, opposed, fact, acceptance, encourage, content, research, emphasize, 2kw

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers